Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 preview samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Apr 10, 2013 at 00:15 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $499.008 deals

Just posted: Our Canon EOS 100D (Rebel SL1) preview samples gallery. We've been lucky enough to get our hands on a pre-production sample of Canon's latest miniaturised SLR, and have assembled a quick samples gallery to give an idea of how it performs. We've shot using the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lenses, and aimed to cover a variety of subjects and lighting conditions. The pre-production camera used offers 'Beta' standard image quality, so may not fully reflect the final image quality (although it's unlikely to be radically different).


Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 Preview samples gallery

There are 27 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples. Note that the camera used for these samples was pre-production and image quality should be considered 'Beta' standard.

Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 preview samples gallery - posted 10th April 2013
229
I own it
87
I want it
36
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 117
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (Apr 11, 2013)

This is great, more or less the same sensor used in 7 of their other cameras. Way to Canon. : )

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 11, 2013)

Didn't you hear? When Canon created the 18MP sensor they decided that they had reached the pinnacle of their abilities and decided to put it in every future camera. In fact, they've stopped all R&D into sensors and instead are trying to come up with an EVF that has the same resolution as a pentaprism viewfinder and only costs a hundred times as much to use in the next Sony camera. Now they're starting to really innovate! Finally! I'm pretty sure they're just about to quit making cameras and lenses altogether and start concentraiting on their real passion: Hello Kitty appliances. You know, like the toasters that toast an image of Hello Kitty into your bread? They've become bored with digital imaging and they're going to update camera names every month until people stop buying them.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 11, 2013)

swing and miss,

2 upvotes
George Veltchev
By George Veltchev (Apr 11, 2013)

Fantastic little camera ....fantastic results !Bravo Canon !

4 upvotes
tommy leong
By tommy leong (Apr 11, 2013)

ergonomics would be my first concern
followed by
how much really smaller it is in real use.

4/3 cameras are small but coupled
with their zoom . the bag they need is not much
smaller than a rebel.
So "small" as a feature for 4/3, is not in real use.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 11, 2013)

Ad a proper zoom to the equation, put the system on a scale and you know the advantage of 4/3.

If you only use the kit lens and have large hands, a bigger body can be better, of course.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (Apr 10, 2013)

Doesn't seem too bad to me. I do wish Canon would not process the jpegs for such softness.

In many of the outdoor shots, the 18-135 has a soft "dreamy" focus on the right side.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Apr 10, 2013)

Pretty strongly over saturated images to my eye.

1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Apr 10, 2013)

Seems to have gained a stop or so. Good to see.

Can we please have some samples of moving objects? A car, a runner, a bike, anything not standing still?

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (Apr 10, 2013)

do you all here really have to look for a clear winner over the remaining brands?
Cannot you just accept that there are many great cameras in the world?
What the whole argument is about ? Pixel peeping, biased opinions, fight for a brand...waisting time for sake of arguments...instead of spending time on polishing photography skills .

9 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 11, 2013)

Steady now,, that much common sense in one post is not allowed here.

6 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (Apr 10, 2013)

You can say what you want about Canon's aging 18 megapixel sensor, but I would still rather have this sensor over anything from the likes of Sony, Nikon, or Olympus. Maybe technically the sensor isn't quite up to par on paper, but in the field the color, wb, detail, and tonality are second to none. I have owned the Nikon D7000 and I did recently own the Olympus OM-D and while those systems are wonderful in their own right, they just can't touch on Canon for output. I know it sounds biased, but I have owned just about everything under the sun and the only system that really comes close to accurately capturing the moment is Canon. I never understand why so many fashion photogs and world renowned artistis used Canon until I bought into the system (I thought it was brand snobbery, but I was wrong).

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Apr 10, 2013)

You're right, it sounds biased.

11 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

Sensors don't have a whitebalance and if there's one field where Canon made sacrifices (to gain sensitivity) since the 20D, it's colour separation.
You're probably use to a certain colour profile, something that is more related to the converter used than the sensor.

8 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Apr 10, 2013)

It is brand snobbery and you are successfully converted. To bad, because the D7000 and the E-M5 will kick every Canon APS-C camera in the nuts at almost every aspect.

11 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 10, 2013)

You're lucky that you've found the right system that fits your needs and your taste. Personally, I never liked Canons color rendering much and prefer Olympus and Nikon.
Today's technical standards are so high, that there's practically not much difference in image quality between brands. This allows choosing according to taste and other aspects.
Isn't this great?

5 upvotes
simon65
By simon65 (Apr 10, 2013)

The samples look great. I can't see any problems there at all.

The million dollar question is, are Canon going to launch some smaller lenses to go with this new pocket DSLR? Just three would do. But without them the pocket DSLR concept lacks coherence.

3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Apr 10, 2013)

Forget about new Canon APS-C lenses. There APS-C lineup is a joke and it will probably always be. Simply because they want you to upgrade to full-frame. So get used to big, heavy and expensive lenses if you want some better quality than the kit-lens.

2 upvotes
TB Rich
By TB Rich (Apr 10, 2013)

EF-S - 17-55, 15-85 and 10-22 are all a joke? I thought they were all very well considered lenses or am I wrong? Also isnt the 60mm macro supposed to be good...
True there are no EF-S primes other than the macro but surely its no issue to just use an EF prime in your budget to suit? - The 40mm pancake is small and very good and very cheap to boot.
I guess if they could develop the EF-M 22mm into an EF-S that would be about the only thing missing from an EF-S line up point of view - as a native small fast 35mm equiv would be a great all around lens, esp if it had IS and F2(+) for low light usage.

2 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 11, 2013)

Thorgram,, Sad little M4/3 fanboy/troll.

1 upvote
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Apr 11, 2013)

Truth hurts so it seems. There are some nice EF-S lenses. The ones TB Rich mentions. But that is it. No pancake's. No fast primes. No advantage in size. No L glass. Only the 17-50 with constant aperture. It's also the only fast EF-S zoom. No tele zoom beyond 400 mm (35mm).

This body is small, but users can't take advantage of it because the Canon EF-S line is sadly far from complete.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TB Rich
By TB Rich (Apr 11, 2013)

I wouldn't say truth hurts at all, but you have a slight point, a few fast primes would be great.
Those native lenses I've listed cover typical ranges for photo work. Only thing missing is perhaps a tele, although the 55-250mm for the money is a steal really. But you have to consider how realistic is it to care too much about size when your using a tele lens. IMO, a mute point.
I use a 650D and 15-85 combo as a versatile daily option, I spent a long time deliberating m4/3 and also Nex systems as possible alternatives. I personally felt that unless the size savings allowed true pocketablity, then if I was carrying a bag then as long as it wasn't a full frame monster, in all honesty it didn't make too much difference on platform. A good compact is the way forward for pocketability. And that is the point really, your still going to need a bag with m4/3s coupled to a good lens. So its hardly the holy grail of compact shooting. So swings and roundabouts really, but EF-S is far from a joke.

0 upvotes
Don Karner
By Don Karner (Apr 10, 2013)

Plasnu....really? Lower class people?

9 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 10, 2013)

I don't think English is her first language.

1 upvote
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (Apr 10, 2013)

"Just look at those bold, contrasty colors. How trite and proletariat! Pah!"

1 upvote
notpc
By notpc (Apr 11, 2013)

How far do I need to move the Photoshop contrast slider to get into the bourgeoisie?

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 10, 2013)

Awful color. Beginners and lower class people usually prefer more saturated color, but this is too much. LOL.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Apr 11, 2013)

And you really think there's no saturation setting in this camera?

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 10, 2013)

Well, these are only JPEGs, but I can't push the ISO 100 shot far enough to show any noise or banding in the shadows or dark clothing.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

Pushing 8bit jpegs is a silly exercise, especially if the lower bits in shadows (even at ISO 100) have been robbed from a good deal of detail thanks to the jpeg engine to begin with.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 10, 2013)

You go try it. Here's a link:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2511306/img_0098?inalbum=canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1-preview-samples

Go push those clothes and rocks as far as you want. They aren't black-point clipped.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

There isn't much in the shadows to begin with as it was exposed for the shadows, with an almost fully clipped sky as a result, even though the DR of the scene was already limited due to overcast (going by the whole set, rain coats and flat light).
And then there's still the factor mush from shadow NR, which hides more than than we can guess.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 11, 2013)

Well, these areas started around 8 counts and I pushed them to 140 counts. I don't see any sign of banding and noise is quite minimal for such a big push.

http://tinyurl.com/dxr747l

0 upvotes
1MPXL
By 1MPXL (Apr 10, 2013)

Very nice photos. The size is very good and light. Cant wait to see the image quality & video comparison with SLT A37 - As rumored its the last of the tiny bodies on Sony's SLT line-up...too bad. might get this Canon body instead after the reviews are up. So when?

0 upvotes
Alwynj
By Alwynj (Apr 10, 2013)

New sensor? Ok, if you say so. I was looking at replacing my D7000 with a 7d or upcoming 70d or 7d mark ii. However, if this is Canon's take on advancement then I'll stay put. It's said this sensor will do duty in the '70d' as well and as far as I can see it's no where near the D7000 sensor. I want 7d focus and speed yes, but wouldn't like to sacrifice IQ and DR

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

Nowhere near the D7000? The Nikon 16.2MP sensor came out a year after the Canon 18MP sensor and has less resolution (actual detail resolution as well as number of pixels) and is no better in terms of noise. Is there a difference in DR? As I recall if there is a difference it's marginal.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

Marginal if several stops would be marginal, not even accounting for banding, which expands the difference in usable DR further.

2 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (Apr 10, 2013)

several stops is like 7 bits of additional data or 128 times more effecient, thats just not possible.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

Several stops?! Okay, first I have to understand what your definition of "several" is. To some it is two or three and some it is four, five, six...maybe more. If you think there is that much difference then no wonder you hate Canon. If you buy DxO's analysis, then there is a 2.2EV difference. That is two, count'em TWO, stops. I personally don't buy their RAW processing of Canon files. According to DPR the 7D has a 9.8EV DR using RAW in ACR. DPR didn't do a RAW comparison on the D7000, but with ADL off it has a 9EV DR and ADL cranked up 10EV. Let's give their RAW files the same advantage as the 7D files going from JPEG 8.3EV to RAW 9.8EV, for a 1.5EV increase which would put D7000 neutral JPEGs up from ~9.6EV up to 11.1EV just for fun. That STILL only would have the D7000 ER 1.3EV above the 7D in DR. Far from several (to me several is at least 4 and usually starts at 5). You must hate the D7100 going from D7000 13.9 down to 13.7EV...that's like three stops!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

First I don't hate Canon. I shot extensively with a 5DMKIII and top glass on my trip to the US last year and enjoyed most of it.

Second, several stops as in more than 2 stops difference between the D7000 and the Canon 18MP sensor (more than 2.5 in the case of the T4i). That's measured and no, they do *NOT* process the RAW files during their tests. Read up on their testing methods before assuming. They measure directly from binary data and do not compare arbitrary contrast curves (which is what you're referring to).

And the measured difference does not account for the visual impact of patterns, which the Canon has, most apparent in the shape of banding. Which means that in practise the difference can be even larger.
For non believers, here's a clear example in the real world where the 7D and D7000 are compared at base ISO using the same exposure and Adobe RAW conversion:
https://hotfile.com/dl/191872996/a4dc5ec/D7_vs_D7000_TIF.rar.html?lang=en

4 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

To exaggerate so much I assumed you must have a bias against Canon. However, I didn't assume anything about DxO's testing methods. They may "measure directly from binary data" but guess what that binary data is called....a RAW file. So let's not call it "processing" let's call it their "method of interpretation." Whether you agree with their analysis or not, the consensus is there is a difference and it's not a major one. I'm familiar with banding in the 7D and it has only occurred for me personally when I push a file beyond the roughly 2-stop headroom RAW gives me....and that was because I underexposed, which is the worst case scenario for the occurrence of banding. Anyway, I don't think even if you believe the 2.2 stop difference you get to round up and call it "several." It is a couple at most, and more like a tad over 1. Now where are all the people to talk about the DR of a print or a screen?

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

I didn't exaggerate at all, as every word I said was backed up by measurements and examples. More than 2 is several, no matter how we slice it. And similar to for example the difference between a D7000 and a P&S sensor that is 8 times smaller. To put things in perspective.
The interesting part of their measurement, is that there is no interpretation involved. They measure without arbitrary selections, changes or manipulation, as done in converters. The 0's and 1's represent what they represent.
-
To use today's DR to its full extend, means exposing for the highlights in a large DR scene, which usually means underexposing shadows and pushing them in a converter (compressing the captured DR), because output media can't cover the full DR to begin with. Which shouldn't lead to the conclusion that it's not usable, as I've thankfully used the above technique hundreds of times to *display* ranges I can't retrieve (or cleanly) from Canon sensors with single exposures.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 10, 2013)

"I didn't exaggerate at all, as every word I said was backed up by measurements and examples."

Not from this camera.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

If you're underexposing to "expose for the highlights" then you're chopping off a huge amount of data the sensor is capable of capturing in the first place. Shooting in RAW and using the histogram displayed (which is the JPEG histogram with all the arbitrary tone curves that go along with it already applied) you really do have to expose to the right. Even if you don't blow highlights in the histogram, you're doing your shadows a favor, and you can probably "blow" highlights in the histogram by a stop and still get them back in RAW conversion. You shouldn't push your shadows you should pull your highlights thus preserving your shadows. If you underexpose to preserve highlights then I see why you're so concerned with banding in the shadows. If you push shadows you're stretching data that was already thin to begin with since the sensor captures a full half of its data in the single brightest stop. For future reference, several isn't 2.2 in most people's minds. The other guy agrees.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

Instead of blowing highlights you've chosen to crush your shadows, probably trying to preserve highlights that were already safe.

0 upvotes
davidgp
By davidgp (Apr 10, 2013)

"To use today's DR to its full extend, means exposing for the highlights in a large DR scene, which usually means underexposing shadows and pushing them in a converter..."

Gotta agree with hoawardroark on this one... TrojMacReady, it seems you are describing an approah that is widely viewed as poor digital practice precisley because it aggravates the shadow noise problem.

As howard indicated, best practice recommends overexposing the highlights w/o blowing them, and then pulling the highlights down during PP.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

Is this a remnant of the film days? I recall being told about pushing film, but about the time I was going to get into it digital came along and lured me to its rocky shores with the sirens' call. Thanks for the confirmation I wasn't misinterpreting Troj's description, david. The arbitrary tone curve applied to JPEG's is also applied to every histogram the camera displays (wouldn't that be a great feature, the "RAW Histogram"!), which means if you go by that and underexpose an image you're underexposing an already underexposed photograph. Brightness in a digital sensor increases in a linear fashion rather the the curve of your eye (or even film) so the gamma adjustment compresses highlights and stretches shadows to more closely approximate human perception. The worst case scenario is underexposing where you're using less than half the available levels the camera is capable of capturing.

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (Apr 10, 2013)

I owned the D7000, absolutely loved the body back when I was a Nikon fan. I now own the Canon 60D. The Canon smokes the D7000 in image quality with only the highest ISO going to Nikon for a win. The Canon delivers worlds better color and skin, accurate white balance, better per pixel detail and better tonality.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 10, 2013)

There's no point in comparing DPRs and DxOs DR values, because they mean different things. They are both correct though, and which is more relevant to you depends on how (and if) you process your files.
The DR that DPR reports is dependent on the tone curve that is applied during raw conversion.
As already mentioned, DxO analyzes the raw sensor data without converting it into actual images, in order to assess the hardware performance independent of any particular converter software. The "engineering DR" that they measure is directly related to shadow noise. The higher the DR value, the more you can push the shadows without a noise penalty (random noise that is, not banding, which is not accounted for by DxO).

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

"If you're underexposing to "expose for the highlights" then you're chopping off a huge amount of data the sensor is capable of capturing in the first place."

Looks like many Canon shooters haven't gotten the memo yet. Highlight headroom is mostly defined by metering. The extra DR available sits in the shadows with regular camera metering. To use this in other areas than the shadows (which is what you often want when the camera tends to chop off extremely bright sources at the right side of the histogram, there's hardly ever 4 to 6 stops in the shadows you want to explore), you shift the available DR partially to the highlights by exposing for the brightest parts and process as described.

There are countless examples of this technique and those shooting "ISO-less" (which you can with most recent Exmor sensors), know the benefits for years.

Not exposing for the highlights in a high DR scene is exactly that, not using a good deal of the DR of your (large DR) camera most of the time.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

@ davidgp:
You hit the important part: shadow noise. Shadow noise mostly defines current levels of DR at the lower ISO's. And having extremely low read noise here, means you have more usable bits in the shadows from which you can benefit elsewhere (for example highlights) too, see above.

Not having clean shadows, means that metering for the highlights can often result in messy shadows and midtones, especially after lifting those shadows back to desired levels. Thus less usable DR. I mostly use those extra usable bits in the shadows by extending my highlight range.

And to be clear, exposing for the highlights still means not wasting space on the right side of your histogram. It just means not blowing out highlights. Recovery isn't really recovery as the data wasn't lost. Just know the margins of your histogram.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

It sounds like you're saying exactly what we said in a different way. "Exposing for the brightest parts" is a little confusing since using a spot meter for the brightest tones will make your exposure very dark. If you're saying keep the highlights as far to the right as possible (either without blowing any or maybe blowing enough to know you'll get them back in PP) then I think we're in agreement. As for the memo, I'm familiar with how RAW files, JPEG files, and histograms work and I know how to expose properly. If you don't take advantage of the brightest stops the shadows are compressed and pulling any detail out of them will also pull all the noise up with it because then number of brightness levels won't change, only where you shift them in the histogram.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

Apparently you haven't gotten the memo, because as I've said several times now, low shadow noise from low read noise, means you have more than 2 stops on paper, in excess of 3 stops in practise *extra in the shadows to push* before your shadow noise levels become as objectional as with the Canon 18 MP sensor. That's a few stops you can use elsewhere, for example to extend your highlight range. Thus all else equal (shadow noise included), you can have a few stops extra in the highlight range that way too. Which is why I can't remember the last time I had clipping in the sky for example. Or why I prefer shooting low light at low(er) ISO's to preserve detail around or illuminated by strong (point) lightsources.

There are plenty of examples of pushing Exmor files more than 3 stops without problems (my own included). In fact, I remember 6 stops pushes from Nikons and Pentaxes too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

Noise in the shadows isn't the main issue. It is a property of the data that a digital sensor responds with a linear increase in levels to photons striking the sensor. That means the actual number of values available to each stop double as you go up from the lowest to highest exposure values. I've shot underexposed at ISO 100 and pushed the shadows, too. I didn't come down with the last drop of rain. The best results as far as noise and detail come from pulling highlights down to preserve shadow detail. That's just a fact and I've processed enough CR2 files to know. How files from other sensors respond is not what I'm referring to and if you've had great luck with them, then great. The A/D encoding of voltages to luminance values is very straight forward and they speak for themselves. How those files are processed has limitless options, but you can't get the same detail from the bottom stop that you can from the top stop of DR.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 10, 2013)

I knew that sooner or later that argument would pop up too but it has been debunked countless times as well. You're talking about the reduction of bit depth but noise actually has a dithering effect which means that the loss of bit depth becomes invisible in practise (again in comparison to Canon, for a given noise level).
Here's an example:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=53451.0
But with access to an Exmor sensor, you can easily test this yourself. I've posted my own tests that confirmed the above a few times in the forums too.
The above is also the reason why adding another 2 bits (14 vs 12) doesn't add anything visible in the shadows for Canon cameras.

Pulling highlights is very limited with the metering of most cameras. Beyond 1 or 2 stops you'll usually find loss of colour information in certain areas already. And in large DR scenes, that isn't going to help you much. Adding another 2 or more stops to the highlights does.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 11, 2013)

Who in the world is talking about dithering at high ISO's on a Fuji camera? I've shot high and low on the camera I'm talking about (we're in a Canon camera's comment section after all) and I know how the RAW files respond being pushed and pulled. Why in the world would you pull down highlights more than two stops? And you're vastly oversimplifying the process of adjusting the levels across the entire spectrum of luminance levels. Highlights can be pulled back without pulling back the entire exposure. Shadows can be conserved locally without making universal changes. RAW editors are not confined to these macro adjustments that seem to be the entire framework for your exposure philosophy. Keep on doing things your own way and if it works for the camera you're using then that's awesome. The capture of luminance levels isn't that complex, and if you pull down highlights and lose color information then you either blew a channel or all three. Color information can't be lost if it exists.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Apr 11, 2013)

You're ripping my words out of context again. I said Exmor sensor allow you to shift a few stops extra to the highlights because they have low read noise. The reduction of bit depth you mentioned isn't a problem, relative to those Canon cameras because the noise (at equal levels) dithers the missing levels, which means the loss is invisible in practise. As the Fuji (Exmor) example shows.

Of course you don't do that with your Canon, because it will not work or work as well. That's exactly the point here. Not being able to "pul"l highlights more than 2 stops is part of the point too. You said you can pull highlights when exposing to the right, I say that's a severely limited option in high DR scenes that span well over 11 stops of DR (which they often do) and not wanting a dark exposure. You say exposing for the brighter parts in that case makes a mess in shadows, I say that's not true for Exmor sensors.

The examples posted sofar (including 7D vs D7000 comparison), back up my claims.

1 upvote
Zdman
By Zdman (Apr 11, 2013)

Wow this has gone on. Sony sensors have an advantage in shadows at low iso due to their per column ADC. This is what gives it its better DR and why it could make sense to underexpose on those cameras. On a balanced exposure nobody is going to see the difference unless they pixel peek. Past iso 800 the sony loses its advantage and Canon does a little better. This all only makes a difference if you push exposure in 90% of pictures its not going to matter.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 11, 2013)

That's why half the time conversations around here are torture. Here we are commenting on a new Canon camera and someone makes a patently untrue statement, then justifies it because this camera can do this and that camera does something else. Oh, and go check this forum for a discussion about an entirely different three year old camera from another company. So the comparison went from SL1 and D7000 to Sony to Fuji.....all because someone thinks two is "several." Two isn't several, you moron.

0 upvotes
Chris Flowers
By Chris Flowers (Apr 10, 2013)

Pretty decent to me. What I like the most is that noise at high ISO looks more like "grain" rather than "noise".
I had the chance to try this one in a trade show, and handling is very nice. I hate M/L camera balance, I'm not a particulary big hand guy but even so It's very dificult to me to feel comfortable using M/L cameras.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dgblackout
By dgblackout (Apr 10, 2013)

I've had a play with one of these the other week and can confirm that they are really fun.

I want one to compliment my 5d2.

0 upvotes
blank_
By blank_ (Apr 10, 2013)

nice camera, but needs some (wide) compact ef-s primes to make sense

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

It still makes sense without the compact primes, but would make MORE sense with them :). I think enthusiasts are the ones that want the compact primes, and if there is enough demand for them, Canon might go for it. Even two pancakes would probably be enough if the other focal length is right.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Apr 10, 2013)

For all the fashion of primes one hears the fact that Canon is aware of is that the vast majority of purchasers never get beyond the kit zoom. Those are the buyers that determine Canon's production plans.

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 11, 2013)

Yep, good point PM

0 upvotes
mraad
By mraad (Apr 10, 2013)

I was a bit sceptical, but at first glance it does seem to be a new/improved sensor. Especially the high ISO samples (6400 ones) seem quite a bit cleaner than what my t2i/550d is able to produce.

I am actually quite curious now for the review!

1 upvote
davidgp
By davidgp (Apr 10, 2013)

I agree... re: high ISO noise the photos seem to be about 1-stop better than I'd expect to get with my 550d.

I too am interested in reading the full review.

But no tilt screen!?!?! That's a real dissappointment for me.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Apr 10, 2013)

I think DPreview should not kill time by taking new images with "new" Canon cameras. It is enough to write "see corresponding section of our review of Canon 550D".

25 upvotes
Tap0
By Tap0 (Apr 10, 2013)

You have summarized the current state of Canon cameras and their sensors very well !

10 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Apr 10, 2013)

Indeed. There are plenty of lenses to be reviewed. (all systems)

6 upvotes
Thorbard
By Thorbard (Apr 10, 2013)

Except that the 100D is using a new sensor and as someone said above, does offer a change in quality.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 10, 2013)

But when Canon do offer a new, improved sensor we won't know about it, since we're busy reading the 550D review. ;-)

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
teos
By teos (Apr 10, 2013)

if it is not pocket-able, size itself is not a main driver since you need to carry a bag, that's why I prefer entry-level dslr rather than micro 4/3. Also, if you are not a professional, technically all systems perform almost similar results for casual photography, in that case the feeling of the camera in your hands make the difference, I love having dslr with nicely fitting grip in my hands while carrying it. Also, prime lenses like 50mm, 85mm makes me feel much happy/entertaining while taking shots with great bokeh..

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 10, 2013)

But a light bag is nicer than a heavy one, don't you think?

5 upvotes
teos
By teos (Apr 10, 2013)

lens weights will be same in your bag, the only difference will be 100g~150g because of the body which is negligible, at least for me :=) If you do the Photography for fun (like me) comfortable handling feeling of the camera in your hand is more preferred than a little less weight of the camera body..

2 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Apr 10, 2013)

This is one of those cases where a few cm's here and there make a huge difference for some people, and are irrelevant for other people.

But as @Revenant said - I had a small dSLR and upgraded to an m43. The m43 in its well cushioned bag could fit inside my dSLR's bag.

But again, it's all about perspective.

7 upvotes
iliask
By iliask (Apr 10, 2013)

"upgraded" from dslr to m43. Really?

1 upvote
quangzizi
By quangzizi (Apr 10, 2013)

Boy your question surely makes me want to "upgrade".

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Apr 10, 2013)

While not really an inexpensive model it's though the most basic entry level cam. But its high iso capabilities are quite impressive. Even ISO 6400 images are highly usable for the targeted clientele.

0 upvotes
David Hurt
By David Hurt (Apr 10, 2013)

Would like to have seen some images taken with 'L' Glass.

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (Apr 10, 2013)

Mostly impressive except for the incandescent light shot. The auto white balance did a terrible job there. Has been an issue on past Rebels as well.

0 upvotes
iShootWideOpen
By iShootWideOpen (Apr 10, 2013)

This SL1 and the 22mm F/2 similar to the EOS M along with the 40 2.8 would make for an awesome small kit.

0 upvotes
JohnMatrix
By JohnMatrix (Apr 10, 2013)

@ iShootWideOpen
The 22mm F/2 won't work on the EF mount. Plus the EOS M is painfully slow in use. Plus 40/2.8 on a crop sensor isn't particularly useful. Yeah...great kit!

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 10, 2013)

You can't have a fast pancake on a DSLR, the long lens mount means any lens with a focal length under 40mm or so has to be a fair bit bigger than an equivalent mirrorless lens.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 10, 2013)

@ JohnMatrix

Why wouldn't the 40 2.8 be useful on a crop sensor? A slightly long normal lens or short portrait lens is extremely useful. The lens is $150 and extremely sharp. It doesn't take long to find some nice images with the 40 2.8 above, so obviously DPR found it "useful".

2 upvotes
Thorbard
By Thorbard (Apr 10, 2013)

I find the 40mm on crop (7D) extremely useful...

1 upvote
JohnMatrix
By JohnMatrix (Apr 10, 2013)

My bad. I completely forgot that 65mm f2.8 primes were popular as heck during the film SLR days. Everybody wanted one coz they were so useful.

0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Apr 10, 2013)

swing and a miss

1 upvote
ArcaSwiss
By ArcaSwiss (Apr 10, 2013)

Canon is going nowhere innovation wise. Wonder if its a pause or a new modus operandi

14 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

Where would you suggest they go?

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Apr 10, 2013)

That makes them a perfect competitor for Nikon. Nikon is stale and pale as well regarding DSLR technology.

5 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 10, 2013)

I think that's part of the reason why Canon is the market leader (in terms of market share). You don't sell millions of cameras by being innovative, i.e. catering to gearheads and enthusiasts. You do it by reiterating the same old winning concept, i.e. catering to the masses. As long as the Rebels continue to sell well, Canon will have no incentive to make any radical changes.

0 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (Apr 10, 2013)

Uhh no, Canon and Nikon are market leaders due to all the wannabee's that wander around thinking they need a Canon/Nikon too look professional/important.
Because all the Pro's have them (they forget that many PJ's get them issued for free).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Apr 10, 2013)

Well, I agree that Canon and Nikon sell a lot of cameras on the strength of their brand names and because of their marketing resources. But you don't build that kind of reputation in the first place by making bad products.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Apr 10, 2013)

This is like watching monkies flinging poo at each other. People think they are the judge and jury of innovation, but the truth is they are just dissatisfied, bored, and impatient. I bought the 7D on day one and I've been thrilled with it for three and a half years. Haven't seen anything in that market segment from any company that would even make me consider ditching it. Bought the G1 X on day one because Canon happened to be the first company to answer my wish for years to have a large sensor compact. It's sad that people think a camera has to be tiny or have some useless infant technology that is only interesting because its new (e.g. EVF) when some older technology is usually cheaper and better (e.g. pentaprism 100% VF). Some specialized situations require smaller cameras or a novel little feature, but no one camera is going to do everything at the highest quality for the lowest price.

0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (Apr 10, 2013)

@howardroark. Exactly, Canon makes useable camera's that work. Sony makes great sensors we get it, doesn't make the Canon a bad camera.

1 upvote
teh huan loong
By teh huan loong (Apr 10, 2013)

i just compare the image with 550D

guy,,can anyone tell what the different ?

1 upvote
quangzizi
By quangzizi (Apr 10, 2013)

In Russia the difference sees you.

1 upvote
iliask
By iliask (Apr 10, 2013)

New sensor seems to have much better dynamic range that remains good even at very high iso's. Tests will show for sure of course.

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Apr 10, 2013)

Samples look good, however, small camera + big lenses = not a cool as Canon want's us to believe. Olympus made very small DSLRs with the E-4xx series, but not until they got rid of the mirror could really small lenses be made to match the body sizes. This SL1 will sell really well for those just sticking with a small kit lens, but mirrorless means a much smaller bag for those who want some versatile optics.

5 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

Untrue, they had the 25mm f/2.8 out way before pancakes became "popular" again. A small camera with a medium sized lightweight lens is still totally fine as well. Canon need a couple more pancakes for this guy is all.

C

2 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Apr 10, 2013)

Agreed, a few wider-than-40mm EF-S primes would pair very nicely with such a tiny body.

2 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Apr 10, 2013)

Are we to conclude that to use huge lenses like "Sigzilla" you would want a camera body the size of a small suitcase? :)

0 upvotes
SirSeth
By SirSeth (Apr 10, 2013)

I'm not talking about Sigzilla type lenses or cameras as large as suitcases. Insinuations of this kind are logical fallacies. I am talking about Canon spending a lot of R&D to make a really small camera that pairs with their wide variety of 35mm lenses and billing it as a solution that is as small as mirrorless systems. There are a few small lenses (there always have been for every DSLR system), but the vast majority of Canon lenses negate the size advantage of the camera. When you compare the mirrorless systems (cameras and lenses) to even a very small DSLR with regular DSLR lenses, the difference is very substantial in system size and weight. My opinion is that Canon is unwilling to compete with mirrorless because it would hurt their bread and butter DSLR market, but they do want to say "We have this SL1 which is just as good if not better; believe us because we are Canon." Yeah, whatever Canon.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 11, 2013)

Fact is most buyers of this camera won't go beyond the lightweight kit lenses, and pros that buy this small camera for a second (or third) body aren't going to be silly enough to put it on big lenses unless they are on a tripod- in that case it doesn't matter how big and heavy a lens is. Canon made a good decision to make this camera and it's evident clearly with all of the positive replies I've seen about it. Canon aren't perfect but they pay attention to where it counts to be the #1 camera manufacturer out there. No camera company is perfect.

0 upvotes
Eldorren
By Eldorren (Apr 10, 2013)

You know... at first I was all gung ho about buying one but I enjoy some videography and I'm reticent to give up the rotating screen in my T4i. I'm not sure the miniaturization would be worth the upgrade... I'm starting to wonder how bizarre some of my lenses would look on this tiny thing.

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (Apr 10, 2013)

So is Canon going to leave us dangling with just a single pancake lens in the lineup (and 40mm isn't a great length for APS-C)?

I guess you're expected to slap one of Canon's traditional big-ass kit zooms on this thing.

Something like a 20 or 24mm f2.8 pancake might even persuade me to trade in my micro 4/3rds for an SL1.

7 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Apr 10, 2013)

Not gonna happen.

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

I keep making the suggestion to Canon to introduce a 20mm and 60mm pancake prime lens to go along with the 40mm... that would really make this camera more enticing to others, and I'd much rather have it than many of the mirrorless models out there.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Apr 10, 2013)

20 mm pancake on 44mm flange with mirror inside of it? How would you do it?

1 upvote
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (Apr 10, 2013)

Pentax managed to formulate a 21mm for their APS sized cameras.

6 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Apr 10, 2013)

Because of the deep lens mount around 40mm is the only focal length you can practically create pancakes for.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

Untrue, see the comment above yours.

0 upvotes
JohnMatrix
By JohnMatrix (Apr 10, 2013)

Don't forget the voigtlander 20mm and 28mm pancakes. Canon could easily give crop users a 30mm f2.8 pancake but choose not to.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 11, 2013)

I wouldn't say it would be easy. It costs a lot of money, time, and resources to make even one lens. When those things come out of your own pocket, it makes decision making much more difficult.

0 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Apr 10, 2013)

It should take the same pics as the T2i et al, right? Same sensor?

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Apr 10, 2013)

Not entirely the same sensor. Wait till the benchmark tests come out and we'll know just how much different it is than we know now.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 117